Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Estoppel - From: 1900 To: 1929

This page lists 12 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018.


 
 Dixon v Kennaway and Co; 1900 - [1900] 1 Ch 833
 
Fenner v Blake [1900] 1 QB 426
1900


Landlord and Tenant, Estoppel
The tenant told the landlord that he wanted to vacate the premises midway during the tenancy. Relying on the oral representation, the landlord sold the premises to a third party. The tenant subsequently refused to vacate the premises and claimed that there had been no consideration for his promise to quit the premises. Held: The tenant was estopped from resiling from his promise to vacate the premises because the landlord had incurred a liability in relying on the tenant's promise by entering into the sale and purchase agreement for the premises. In so doing, the landlord had rendered himself liable to an action at the suit of the purchaser if he was unable to provide vacant possession.
1 Citers


 
Munni Bibi v Tirloki Nath (Unknown)
1900
PC

Estoppel
(Year unknown) A res judicata estoppel will normally have effect between a plaintiff and defendant, but can also have effect between defendants. "In such a case three conditions are requisite: (1) There must be a conflict of interest between the defendants concerned; (2) It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give the plaintiff the relief he claims and (3) The question between the defendants must have been judicially decided’."
1 Citers


 
Longman v Bath Electric Tramways Ltd [1905] 1 Ch 646
1905
CA
Stirling LJ
Estoppel
The reliance to be established by a person who seeks to raise an estoppel must be the proximate, direct or real loss (or detriment) which is asserted as part of the grounds for the estoppel.
1 Citers


 
Bader Bee v Habib Merican Noordin [1909] AC 615
1909
HL
Lord Macnaghten
Estoppel
Where a party could have appealed against an earlier decision of a court, but did not, he would later be estopped from denying that decision.
1 Citers



 
 Humphries v Humphries; CA 1910 - [1910] 2 KB 531; [1908-10] All ER rep 733; [1910] 79 LJKB 919; [1910] 103 LT 14
 
Ferrier v Stewart [1912] 15 CLR 32; [1912] HCA 47
24 Jun 1912

Isaacs J
Commonwealth, Estoppel, Contract
High Court of Australia - The plaintiffs were the surviving members of a firm, owed money by the defendant's husband confirmed promissory notes. The firm extend his credit against new promissory notes, provided that they were indorsed by the defendant also so as to make her liable on the notes. This she agreed to do. In order to effect a contract between herself and the firm, the notes had formally to be indorsed by the firm to her before she put her indorsement on them. In fact, the notes were given to her, for her indorsement, before the firm's indorsement appeared on them and she placed her indorsement on them as if they had already been indorsed to her. The notes were thereafter indorsed by the firm, so that on their face they appeared to have been indorsed in the correct chronological sequence, contrary to the facts as both parties knew them to be. The defendant subsequently refused to pay the bills on the ground that they had not been indorsed to her at the time of her signature. Held: This defence failed. The parties had adopted a conventional basis for the transaction. They impliedly agreed that, when the promissory note should be completed by other indorsements, it should be assumed to have been issued and indorsed by the parties in due order. From this assumption the indorsee was not permitted to depart, although all parties had been aware of the actual state of affairs.
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]
 
Meyers v Casey [1913] HCA 50; (1913) 17 CLR 90
13 Oct 1913

Barton ACJ, Isaacs, Powers and Rich JJ
Estoppel
(High Court of Australia) The Court considered a decision of the committee of the Victoria Racing Club. Isaac J said of objections considered by the committee: "They are, by reason of the committee's decision, res judicatae, as much as if instead of the committee it had been the Supreme Court unappealed from, that has so held. That rests on the well known rule that a competent court or other tribunal has jurisdiction to give a wrong judgment, and if there is no appeal in the strict sense, then its decision, whether right or wrong, must stand, and cannot be questioned in any subsequent proceedings elsewhere."
1 Citers

[ Austlii ]

 
 Hoysted v Federal Commissioner of Taxation; 16-Dec-1921 - (1921) 29 CLR 537; [1921] HCA 56
 
Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Broken Hill Municipal Council [1926] AC 94; [1925] UKPC 96
10 Nov 1925
PC

Taxes Management, Estoppel, Commonwealth
A decision of the High Court of Australia on the construction of a section of a statute dealing with rating value did not estop the parties from relitigating the issue on a subsequent year's assessment.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 R E Jones Ltd v Waring and Gillow Ltd; HL 1926 - [1926] AC 670

 
 Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation; PC 1926 - [1926] AC 155; [1925] All ER 56; (1926) 42 TLR 207; 67 ER 313
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.